Ed Sheeran testifies in Marvin Gaye plagiarism case

[Teletubby 137,581]

Ed Sheeran has defended his songwriting in a New York court after it was alleged that he plagiarised Marvin Gaye’s song Let’s Get It On for his own hit ballad Thinking Out Loud.
The lawsuit is being brought by the heirs of Gaye’s co-writer on Let’s Get It On, Ed Townsend, and was originally filed in 2017. It alleges that Sheeran and co-writer Amy Wadge copied an ascending four-chord sequence, and its rhythm. 

Ben Crump, a lawyer for the plaintiffs argued that a video of Sheeran performing a live mashup of Thinking Out Loud with Let’s Get It On was “a confession” of plagiarism.

Ed later countered: “Most pop songs can fit over most pop songs … You could go from Let it Be to No Woman, No Cry and switch back,” referring to songs by the Beatles and Bob Marley.

Sheeran added: “If I had done what you’re accusing me of doing, I’d be a quite an idiot to stand on a stage in front of 20,000 people and do that.”

His lawyer told the court that the plaintiffs “cannot own these common musical elements … No one owns basic musical building blocks” and “All songwriters draw from this same basic toolkit.”
She said her clients had been “wrongly accused of taking something they did not take,” and warned jurors that a verdict for Sheeran’s accusers would “change the way songwriters are able to write.”
In an earlier written filing, Sheeran’s team argued: “The two songs share versions of a similar and unprotectable chord progression that was freely available to all songwriters.”

Townsend’s daughter appeared as a witness, saying she intended to “protect my father’s legacy”, but added that she had brought the case reluctantly and described Sheeran as “a great artist with a great future”.

A musicologist retained by the plaintiffs has described the chords in each song as “virtually interchangeable” while acknowledging they are slightly different. A musicologist for Ed has said the chord sequence is not unique, and gave numerous other examples of its use in songs by artists such as Donovan and the Seekers. 
source source

[Dayman 5,989]

I hope he wins. I don't like Ed Sheeran or his music - but this lawsuit and others like it are so incredibley dangerous and in part why we have seen such an uptick in straight up samples being used in a song. In a legal sense it's literally becoming safer to sample than it is to try doing something on your own. This all goes back to the Blurred Lines case - which is a song I HATE. Where Gayes estate sued Pharrell and WON for it having a similar feel to one of his songs. Honestly incredible that his estate is such a menace to the music industry.

[Bolkins 4,085]

Its interesting these people and lawyers convince themselves they're protecting a legacy by doing this, when actually they're literally ruining it and reducing Marvin Gaye's work to these money grab law suits. He has one of the greatest albums ever recorded, one of the greatest protest songs ever recorded and a life story that could very easily be made into a film, but I guess that all involves work where suing people makes money with minimum effort. 

[bionic 43,888]

18 minutes ago, Bolkins said:

Its interesting these people and lawyers convince themselves they're protecting a legacy by doing this, when actually they're literally ruining it and reducing Marvin Gaye's work to these money grab law suits. He has one of the greatest albums ever recorded, one of the greatest protest songs ever recorded and a life story that could very easily be made into a film, but I guess that all involves work where suing people makes money with minimum effort. 

Nothing about this lawsuit affects the quality of the album or prevents them from making his life story into a film

[Bolkins 4,085]

2 minutes ago, bionic said:

Nothing about this lawsuit affects the quality of the album or prevents them from making his life story into a film

I'm not saying it does, but his estate doesn't seem to care much about those things by the seems of it 

[Dayman 5,989]

5 minutes ago, Bolkins said:

I'm not saying it does, but his estate doesn't seem to care much about those things by the seems of it 

Probably because they would either have to exclude the part about him being abusive and it being brought up very publicly for its exclusion OR include it and make most people aware of it for the first time. His life story is not one that will help his legacy unfortunately.

[Guillaume Hamon 6,027]

6 hours ago, Dayman said:

I hope he wins. I don't like Ed Sheeran or his music - but this lawsuit and others like it are so incredibley dangerous and in part why we have seen such an uptick in straight up samples being used in a song. In a legal sense it's literally becoming safer to sample than it is to try doing something on your own. This all goes back to the Blurred Lines case - which is a song I HATE. Where Gayes estate sued Pharrell and WON for it having a similar feel to one of his songs. Honestly incredible that his estate is such a menace to the music industry.

I mean Sheeran got quite a lot of musical rip off accusations for a quite short career... But you're dead on with the risks for all artists since the blurred lines case reach...

Can't believe the Bruno Mars or Ed guys got settlements to avoid plagiarism condamnations yet don't have a copycat image while Gaga who never had to do it had this label for so long!

[StrawberryBlond 14,216]

8 hours ago, Dayman said:

I hope he wins. I don't like Ed Sheeran or his music - but this lawsuit and others like it are so incredibley dangerous and in part why we have seen such an uptick in straight up samples being used in a song. In a legal sense it's literally becoming safer to sample than it is to try doing something on your own. This all goes back to the Blurred Lines case - which is a song I HATE. Where Gayes estate sued Pharrell and WON for it having a similar feel to one of his songs. Honestly incredible that his estate is such a menace to the music industry.

Up until now, I was all for Ed settling just to put it to rest as he's so rich that it doesn't mean much if he has to waive royalties on this one. But after reading this, I wholeheartedly agree with you. It's so hard to create anything truly original in this day and age after so many centuries of existing music, basic chord progressions are a mainstay at this point and no one owns them. There'll be no new music in the future if we're going to nitpick to this extent. Very good point as to why sampling is so frequent these days - provided you have it officially cleared, you never have to worry about being accused of being a bit too inspired. I had no idea that Blurred Lines was targeted merely for having the FEEL of a Marvin Gaye song. Artists have always been inspired by songs from years gone by and that's how an old sound can have a comeback. That's a positive thing, if anything. I don't like to think that Marvin told his estate to go after songwriters this badly after he died. I mean, Prince hated it when people listened to his music for free but I've never seen his estate go after anyone for copying him after he died. 

[M i K E Y 7,354]

Music is made of 12 notes. Surely some things will always repeat such as chord progressions or rhythms. These lawsuits are silly at most of the times. 

[androiduser 7,438]

the songs sound nothing alike, this is ridiculous